Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
They may have discussed it but they never defined it. Talking about how acidic something is is ridiculous without a ph scale. Talking about how heavy or light something does not work with out some kind of measuring system. Same as talking about how illegal something is unless there is some code of penal system - misdemeaor, A felony, B felony etc. Saying something is really immoral, just immoral or not immoral at all is ridiculous without some sort of way to measure. Since Plato did not have a code, he just assumed it was insinctual. He also assumed that every one would agree on what is good and what is not. He assumed a code.
|
In the first place, Spnky, the mere fact that this discussion is taking place is confirmation of the fact that we still haven't defined it.
Furthermore, you can't assert that because what is "good" didn't have a relative scale under Plato doesn't mean he understood it any less than we do today, at least not if what you're debating is the foundation of morality as an absolute.
Finally, Plato did not assume that "everyone would agree on what is good and what is not." Plato posited that there is an ideal "Good" (i.e., the Form) and that we, as mere mortals could not fully understand the Form, but only attempt to puzzle it out on the basis of human faculties, like empathy, mutual benefit, and rational discourse.
You are talking in circles and making less sense each time around. I suggest you stop, think through exactly what it is you believe, why you believe it, and why anyone else here should care. Then, and only then, should you take this discussion to the next level. Because it's becoming apparent that the more others respond to you, the more confused you are getting.
